Bilbo

Just found this. I had seen it before but had forgotten about it. You have to watch it to the end for a little bit of Dudley Moore mischief!! https://youtu.be/CS8Va_z-2bA

Several and it's the best fun. Your reading improves exponentially and you get to play stuff you would otherwise never get anywhere near. I envy you.

[quote name='lurksalot' timestamp='1441555930' post='2859767'] But in jazz , does anyone know where the end is When everyone stops. Isn't it? [/quote]

I play Jazz. No-one stays 'til the end.

I just wanted to point out that my thread title was ironic. There is nothing wrong with the production values of modern pop music. I just wanted to register how hard it is for the little guy to keep up with the technology used in producing it. I guess a parallel would be a local group trying to put on a gig in a pub versus a full-on Iron Maiden stage/lighting set up.

I think I saw Saxon at Bristol Colston Hall. Then again, I am old enough to remember when they invaded......

I saw Motorhead in 1981 at Port Vale's Heavy metal Holocaust festival (Motorhead, Ozzy Osbourne with Randy Rhodes, Frank Marino and Mahogany Rush, Triumph and Vardis - what a line up!!. I think I remember the Bomber lighting rig but that might be a false memory. I remeber Marino as I was massive fan but I have no recollection whatsoever of Triumph.

I had a Motorhead fest yesterday and revisited Overkill and. Bomber. Fcuk me, they were loud.

There are increasingly a number of Jazz musicians who also play commercial music more than convincingly (Jason Rebello with Jeffe Beck, for instance). All it requires is discipline and some knowledge/insight into the musics being performed. My point is that, nowadays, this remains exceptional. I have to admit that I am part of the problem and recent events in my own career have brought this home to me. The problem is that to create a polished commercial product of any description takes time that, to my mind and that of many other Jazzers, is not really worth it 'emotionally'. My thinking recently is that surely a polished product will be more satisfying that the thrashing around / that'll do / nearly but not quite approach I have taken for the last two decades!! The idea scenario is properly produced charts (did a wedding last month where this was the idea and it was much better). I can play most genres convincingly and quite quickly if the dots are there but sometimes even that is not enough.

It's aproblem with Jazzers. We know all sorts of stuff about music and have an appalling attitude to commercial musics of any kind. The philosphy seems to be that 'it's pop, it's mostly sh*t and we can play it standing on our heads and probably better'. What they do badly is, for a start, sound. They just turn up with their 'portable' gear and don't really consider the timbre of their instrument as part of the ensemble sound. They see a chord and play 'their' version of it without any insight into voice leading aspects of the [i]song [/i](as opposed to the harmony). They miss out details that are often definitive; riffs, licks etc (I do a commercial gig where they do 'I WIll Survive'. When it comes to that wonderful 'solo' (the one Robbie WIlliams nicked for Millenium), the keyboard player blows a solo - it just sounds so wrong) and are often quite uninformed about genres and sub-genres. They are very casual about starts and endings and can be appalling at 'stage craft' (lots of standing around deciding what to do next). They have their strengths as well; they tend to be better at dynamics and their tempos tend to be a little more centred but, fundamentally, the average Jazzer's attitude to the integrity of commercial music is s***. When they get it right, when they have a respected MD etc, these players can be the absoute best but, being absolutely honest about it, Jazz musicians can, if not 'contained', be an absolute nightamre

They are great for folk who are starting out and want to 'have a go' but for, people who are experienced pros, there are better ways to spend your time and to make connections.

It's all part of the game, isn't it? I have been mostly a one bass man for 29 years now and have always said that one decent professional instrument (ie one that works consistently) and one adequate amp is pretty much all you need. Trouble is, I am now in a slightly different space. I wanted to try some new ideas so got a 7-string bass. I also think that, if you want to slap (which I have never really bothered with), you need a fretted (my 29 year bass is fretless). My double bass amp is ok for electric for the bollocks I do but I am aware that it has shortcomings at higher volumes so I should think about getting a second, meatier amp. I have a Gibson ES175 but it doesn't do rock guitar sounds so I bought a 335 (copy). I like my nylon acoustic but my steel string is about to fall apart. And so it all starts again. I agree that the 'graphite nut' brigade are anoraks but there are certainly some distinctions that matter more than others. P vs. J is not one that I ever noticed but fretted vs fretless, 5-strings for low Bs, double vs. electric etc; some of these are now industry standard.

1) I'm treating the first bar as a lead in bar, so no crochet rest is required - is this correct? [b]YES[/b] - [b]you could add the rest and it wouldn't be wrong but what you have is perfectly acceptable. [/b] 2) The double bar-line is correct as it indicates the start of the tune excluding the lead in? If it was the case that the tune were to continue, and repeats included for a second verse, then this bar-line would be a repeat sign [b]l[/b]l: and the 3 lead in notes of the melody for the second verse would be in the last bar before a repeat sign :l[b]l[/b] [b]YES but scores tend to have a double bar at the start (like the one you have put at the end of your paragraph but WITHOUT the repeat dots). Given the context, you just have to choose whether you want to honour the tradition. I do have Bach scores where the lead in for the B sections are AFTER the repeat bar and do not feature any rests etc as with your opening bar. I think both options are reasonably common.[/b] 3) Should the accidental be a Bb (followed by a B preceded by a natural sign) instead of A#? I think the song may often be sung with an A natural but I think the accidental sounds nicer. [b]No - the A is sharpened not the B flattened as you are in the key of G which is defined by the F# rather than a Gb. In truth, the original melody note is probably the A anyway, rather than an A# - both make a form of sense but the A# is more 'jazzy' and unlikley to have been in vogue when this tune was written (1939). Unless you access the original tune as a piece of sheet music, you will have to make a decision that you are happy with.[/b] 4) I'm leaving the last bar open to indicate the song should continue, and not filling the bar with rests, or cutting it all together. Any thoughts? [b]I think it works best as you have it [/b] I don't want to get this wrong. [b]Understandable but I think some of these 'wrongs' are not wrong in the way a spelling mistake is, just different. Many staff notation 'rules' are not universal and each composer has their own nuances.[/b]

Sutton, Surrey http://www.healeyviolins.co.uk/

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1441215460' post='2857036'] Sorry Bilbo, I'm missing your point! You seem to be saying that bands that don't rehearse and rely on charts only produce "a poor approximation of the original". Quite obviously, the same said band [i]that rehearse[/i] would a make a better fist of things! Are you just saying that the musicians that you're involved with don't rehearse, and that you're not enjoying it for that reason? [/quote] Yes and no. Obviously a band that rehearses would be a good idea but, in truth, properly produced charts and reading musicians can achieve the same outcome but then they would have to have music stands on the stage and we wouldn't want that now, would we?

Very good points. I am thinking that the problem isn't what I thought it was. It is the lack of an arrangement that is the issue. When I do function gigs, I am often presented with a chord chart that says F, Bb, C7 etc and then, occasionally, not always, something like 'Funky', or 'Shuffle'. The band never rehearses but just launches into a version that is based around some sort of shared consensus of what the thing kind of sounds like nearly. I have an idea of the bass part (from a distant recollection of hearing the tune once on a radio or even just on some concept of what 'Funky' or 'Shuffle' means) and everyone else has a nearly but not quite concept of the tune in their own mind. Because the end result is inevitably a poor approximation of the original, it sucks. If someone comes in with a properly prepared chart or some specific arrangement ideas ('let's do X in 5:4', play the A section with bass and vocals only or whatever), then it often works. It's not the production on the original that is the problem, it is the lack of thought put into an arrangement for teh actual ensemble that is about to play it. I am glad we had this conversation.

I was thinking about this in realtion to the Uptown Funk tone thread started a couple of days ago. One of the problems I increasingly experience with popular music of the current era is the relationship between the material being performed and the production vlaues thereof. The issue I have is not that there is a problem with it in itself but that, when people want to 'have a go' and reproduce the hits of the day, the sounds being made are unattainable. The tone of the bass in Uptown Funk is one example obviously but there is much more to this that a bass tone. I did a gig recently where they played Uptown Funk and a load of similar hign production nuimbers and what was obvious to me is that it is all but impossible for a four or five piece band to even begin to approach the feel of the original. A Jazz quartet sounds like a Jazz Quartet, a big band like a big band, a two guitar heavy metal band sounds like a two guitar heavy metal band and so on into Folk, Reggae etc etc. But with Pop recordings littered with complex and layered production, it is almost impossible to get the sounds, the horn parts, the weird production effects, massive vocal harmonies etc etc. As a result, when you play them at gigs, they sound, well, naff; empty, shallow, a shadow of the original. I think we did Happy and that Daft Punk Up All Night thing and, although we were tight and played something approximating the original, they all sounded a but s***. The Beatles Curse thread is interesting also in that the band resutled in a generation or three of guitar based bands knocking out A Hard Days Night but, as it went forward and got more and more intense in terms of the Martin productions, the bands they originally influenced probably got left behind as they couldn't afford to cart along a string quartet or full orchestra and tape effects (hence the Mellotron ). Even if you want to try, the outlay in terms of the kit necessary to pull some of these things off is prohibitive. I am not criticising these productions; it is an art form itself and can be wonderful. Nevertheless, it does make it hard for bands to play convincing versions. Maybe that's the point. Simple arrangements can be done reasonably well, big production numbers can be a nightmare of compromise. I think my problem is that a lot of bands lack the critical sense to know when to leave something alone. And tonight, I am playing 'Close To The Edge' arranged for double bass and harmonica.

The tumbleweed is more about me that it is about the picture It'll come.

PS nothing to do with me. Not even in jest.

I wuz robbed....

Guess. Go on, guess.

[quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1441101015' post='2855973'] I'm going to guess that your performances are a little less physical than Flea's though. I imagine that sort of thing wouldn't get you asked back to jazz gigs! [/quote] Say you don't know.....

How Bass works has tied us all up for decades. You need to see it as a journey rather than as a destination. FOr a start, the bass works very differently depending on genre so a reggae bass player will have a different perspective that a metal head and so on.

Good solos, bad solos. That's the only distinction.